The issue I have, being a strict Constitutionalist, is we have freedom of religion. That means just because your religion doesn't recognize homosexual marriage does not mean it should be applied equally to everyone else. A homosexual couple may have a different relationship with their creator and should not be denied any right or privilege guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, because of how you interpret your religion.

In typing what I just typed, I can see the difference between a civil union and a marriage. Ive no issue with homosexual marriage or civil union, just as long as they are afforded the same privileges as heterosexual unions/marriages. By Cain suggesting that the act/relationship is a choice opens the door to American Citizens being denied some of the most basic rights granted to them by our founding documents.

let's push the envelope perhaps, and maybe even your comfort level.

what you say to the idea that a sister and brother marry? They afterall could just as easily be two willing, consenting adults - do they have the right to pursue happiness via this marriage/civil union ceremony?

Mother/Son? Grandfather/GrandDaughter?

Why stop at only 1? why not allow group marriages? If the intent is Governmental recognition/rights of a union is this any different than the Government recognizing Corporations as "legal entities/people".

Hell, form a "marriage" corporation and let people buy/sell stock in it...

what you say to the idea that a sister and brother marry? They afterall could just as easily be two willing, consenting adults - do they have the right to pursue happiness via this marriage/civil union ceremony?

Mother/Son? Grandfather/GrandDaughter?

Why stop at only 1? why not allow group marriages? If the intent is Governmental recognition/rights of a union is this any different than the Government recognizing Corporations as "legal entities/people".

Hell, form a "marriage" corporation and let people buy/sell stock in it...

As much as I think its disgusting, its still their right to pursue their happiness. If a dude marrying his sister or mother, or a chick marrying her brother or grandfather does it for them, perfect. It in no way effects my life so why should I feel the need to have an open opinion about it?

As for group marriages.... Again, it doesn't effect my life or my beliefs so why would I feel the need to have an open opinion? Personally I think one spouse is enough, if not to much at times. I don't know why someone would want more than one..... But hey, if it makes them happy and is not directly effecting anyone elses Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness, rock on.

Got anything to back up this ridiculous statement that gay people have an organized commitment to end society?

Sure. It takes a male and a female to continue our existence here on earth.
But Sova wants to have the foundation of society (marriage and great things that come from it) changed forever so I figured he'd have some great poetic statement to make about his love for the gays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kickstand

I think you are giving him a lot of credit using the word opinion.

Yeah, just some schmuck here . . .not a big smart guy like you oh great one.

I find it hard that being gay is a choice. I mean really, what straight man could ever decide to suddenly like the cock? What straight dude who loves laying pipe could look at a dude's dick and say to himself that he wants that in his ass?

So many gay people go through a very tough life because of family and friends and society not accepting them. Who would ever choose that?

I do not believe for a second that it is a choice.

Who here ever had an internal conversation with themselves about whether they should be gay? Probably no one because it isn't a choice. You have internal debates and conversations with all other aspects of your life... what career path, where to go to college, what car to buy, what investments to make, but you never mull over the idea if you want to slay vag or suck dick. You just know which one you want to do.

Maybe I should clarify, choosing to act upon gay urges is a choice (and the point I really meant to make). I don't care who you like, who you don't, whether you want to lay the pipe to a man or women. I could give 2 shits. Gays don't bother me or threaten me, I don't care, they live their life I live mine (and yes I know many gays and have quite a few relatives that are gay).
I do however feel the government is far too involved in putting labels and definitions on shit. Who cares, honestly. I am sure most of you wouldn't care either if it was not a topic brought on by the politics of this country.
This all boils down to rights, the gays have all the rights the straights do legally as individuals, the problems come with a spouse or life partner, etc.
So conservatives say no way to gay "marriage" and the gays want to be legally married. So both sides want a definition or a title. Change the world and eliminate a political topic that the Gov should not be in control of and add a f-ing box to the insurance form, tax forms, etc....Life-Partner or something. This extends "marriage" type benefits (w/o getting into the religious aspects) and gives the conservatives some middle ground while giving the gays equal rights which they should have as Americans.

I may have seemed like an asshole in the earlier post....maybe that's cause I am, I get tired of seeing people waste good time and effort on complete bullshit. They are human beings, living in arguably the most free country in the world. Why then are they not treated equally by the government. They may face prejudice on the streets that we may not be able to control, but the damn Gov should not decide who has more rights than others, this country was built on equal rights, freedom and the separation of religious views from lawmaking.
Extend new federal laws recognizing this with regards to taxes, benefits, etc and encourage the states to follow with similar law.

If a candidate actually had some plans to include people in this country w/o alienating groups I might be much more inclined to vote for them. I think that person would push for more change than we have seen in 60+ years, since the blacks and women went through the similar things.

As much as I think its disgusting, its still their right to pursue their happiness. If a dude marrying his sister or mother, or a chick marrying her brother or grandfather does it for them, perfect. It in no way effects my life so why should I feel the need to have an open opinion about it?

But it will afect your life. I'm not talking about any religious aspects, or even political ones. But in pure genetic terms, inbreeding (caused by incestuous sexual relationiships) does deteriorate the gene pool. The result of that is the manifestatioin of a plethora of physical (and smetimes mental) problems. These problems must be dealt with (cured, adapted to, or otherwise responded to), and in many instances are dealt with at public expense. Thus you, as a taxpayer, will have your life affected by that kind of activity.

It is akin to stating that you don't care if a person steals, as long as he doesn't steal from you or yours, becaue it doesn't affect you. But it does affect you. Your taxes pay for the investigation, arrest, trial, and potential incarceration of the thief. You also will pay in the marketplace. If shoplifters abound, and they steal, say, 10% of the goods at K-Mart, you can rest assured that K-Mart will increase the price of their goods to make up for the loss. Thus, you will be paying a higher price for the goods in order to pay for the shoplifter's behavior.

But it will afect your life. I'm not talking about any religious aspects, or even political ones. But in pure genetic terms, inbreeding (caused by incestuous sexual relationiships) does deteriorate the gene pool. The result of that is the manifestatioin of a plethora of physical (and smetimes mental) problems. These problems must be dealt with (cured, adapted to, or otherwise responded to), and in many instances are dealt with at public expense. Thus you, as a taxpayer, will have your life affected by that kind of activity.

It is akin to stating that you don't care if a person steals, as long as he doesn't steal from you or yours, becaue it doesn't affect you. But it does affect you. Your taxes pay for the investigation, arrest, trial, and potential incarceration of the thief. You also will pay in the marketplace. If shoplifters abound, and they steal, say, 10% of the goods at K-Mart, you can rest assured that K-Mart will increase the price of their goods to make up for the loss. Thus, you will be paying a higher price for the goods in order to pay for the shoplifter's behavior.

But it will afect your life. I'm not talking about any religious aspects, or even political ones. But in pure genetic terms, inbreeding (caused by incestuous sexual relationiships) does deteriorate the gene pool. The result of that is the manifestatioin of a plethora of physical (and smetimes mental) problems. These problems must be dealt with (cured, adapted to, or otherwise responded to), and in many instances are dealt with at public expense. Thus you, as a taxpayer, will have your life affected by that kind of activity.

You think this would happen on a scale large enough to effect all 330,000,000 people of the United States? Its my contention the gene pool wont thin that much because I don't think there are that many people that really want to "keep it in the family." Those that do are probably from small, VERY small towns and I'm sure don't/wont travel much. SO while technically you are right.... Your suggestion that it will effect me via my taxes is no different than me carrying multi generations of people on Welfare. I would consider an incest "plague" far less damaging than the multi millions of people growing their families on Government subsidies.

Since you brought this up as a point of contention, I am going to assume you find the multi generationl welfare in the US just as disgusting and are going to fight that as well? Speaking just on a "the taxpayers pay for it" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSailor

It is akin to stating that you don't care if a person steals, as long as he doesn't steal from you or yours, becaue it doesn't affect you. But it does affect you. Your taxes pay for the investigation, arrest, trial, and potential incarceration of the thief. You also will pay in the marketplace. If shoplifters abound, and they steal, say, 10% of the goods at K-Mart, you can rest assured that K-Mart will increase the price of their goods to make up for the loss. Thus, you will be paying a higher price for the goods in order to pay for the shoplifter's behavior.

Stealing is wrong because you have taken something that doesn't belong to you. I will gladly support a justice system that prosecutes those who violate others rights. Comparing stealing and incest is a stretch, at best.